Russia says it used 'hypersonic missiles' in Ukraine: Report | Hacker News Reader

Russia says it used 'hypersonic missiles' in Ukraine: Report

freepressjournal.in

26 pointsmardiyah46 comments

Can’t imagine that moves the needle. Most cruise missiles were hitting already.

I would imagine this is simply because they’re out of cheaper missiles.

> I would imagine this is simply because they’re out of cheaper missiles.

Not necessarily. I have no idea whether Russia sells their missiles, but if they do, this might act like a field demonstration?

Edit: some people on Twitter believe that it is a deterrent signal to NATO: https://twitter.com/ClintEhrlich/status/1505099402980958209

Doubtful. All evidence points to Russia having few supplies of their good weapons. The west won’t bat an eye at this.

They’re losing tons of planes because they don’t have the precision bombs anymore so they need to fly low in range of AA weapons

They have low production capacity but so far they expended small part of their stock of cruice/balistic missiles.

Also, they are flying low because they weren't able to destroy Ukrainian air defense so flying high is still quite dangerous. When they're flying low air defence has no enough time to react - it's still dangerous but less so.

Pretty sure That is the opposite of true.

Flying high keeps you out of range of many weapons.

I think this should be viewed more as a signal to NATO, that no matter how many air defenses it deploys to logistics hubs used to ship military equipment to Ukraine, Russia can still hit them if it wants. Of course, how NATO responds after is a different matter.

> About 50 miles from Ukraine at an airport in Eastern Poland, a major show of American force is designed to deter Russian aggression. The U.S. has deployed two Patriot missile batteries, which are among the most sophisticated air defense systems in the world. ... The airport in Eastern Poland is also used as a way station for weapons going to Ukraine. On Tuesday, what appeared to be a convoy of trucks left the airport heading for the border.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ukraine-poland-us-patrio...

They could already penetrate the defenses with their other assets. The message to Nato is demonstrating a nuclear-capable missile that could penetrate NATO defenses

> simply because they’re out of cheaper missiles.

It's a clear nuclear signal. It was theorised years ago this would be a use [1]

I'm a little amazed at the ops on Twitter claiming it's because Russia has run out of cheaper bombs. Somehow it gained traction. Is it wishful thinking?

[1] (2020) -The possibilities of multi-variant application of the Kinzhal ARC make it possible to influence the enemy state (both the military-political leadership and the population) in order to deter military aggression or escalation of hostilities during a military conflict.

https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/rol-novyh-sistem-strategic...

It doesn’t change the calculus of nuclear weapons at all.

I wonder if it is just propaganda. It just doesn't really make sense why they would use hypersonics at this stage.

A press release that cost nothing though makes much more sense.

Not many opportunities to calibrate/test toys at that scale...?

Not endorsing any side of the conflict, but just the fact that humanity is able to make missiles that fly at 1.7 km/s is mind boggling to me. Imagine watching that fly overhead on a clear day. Actually I suspect one might totally miss the sight even if they were told “It’s coming. Watch for it.”

> Not endorsing any side of the conflict

Please do endorse Ukraine's side of the conflict. They are being invaded and murdered in their homeland. They did not start this. They did not threaten anybody. It's not OK to see what's happening and remain neutral.

I find this article (in german) very insightful; it has helped me to better understand why this war happened:

https://zeitgeschehen-im-fokus.ch/de/newspaper-ausgabe/nr-4-...

Excellent book with the same narrative (in german):

https://www.orellfuessli.ch/shop/home/artikeldetails/A105313...

To nix23's answer, which is now dead and can't be further replied to:

Funny, that link you posted was already grey on my browser, and yet I rest my case: NATO didn't invade any country and forced it to join. The fact that most eastern European countries lined up to join the very first moment they could, is because they knew fully well what monster lied to the east, and experienced its brutality within living memory. Most importantly, they lined up to join because they are free to choose, and so they did.

Attacking countries because they don't like you and join your opponent is a laughably thin bullshit pretext. Russia already bordered 6 NATO countries, annexing Ukraine would actually push that number UP. Is that going to be justification for further aggression?

You either accept that Ukrainians are in charge of their own destiny, therefore they are free to join NATO, the EU, my book club and whatever else they choose, or you don't, in which case I'd like to understand why, in your opinion, they are not free, and, apparently, why it's ok in your opinion to murder and invade them if they try.

I won't even argue that NATO is a defense organization, despite being convinced of that, because that's not the point here: even if they weren't, it's still NOT OKAY to attack countries who wish to stop being threatened by you, and seek its protection.

>NATO didn't invade any country

Oh really that's new for me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations

>You either accept that Ukrainians are in charge of their own destiny

So was Cuba (Cuba-crisis).

>I won't even argue that NATO is a defense organization

Funny that you say that, because they think they are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO

>>NATO constitutes a system of collective security, whereby its independent member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party

> Oh really that's new for me:

Which countries NATO invaded again?

> So was Cuba (Cuba-crisis)

Cuba is still in charge of their destiny. They are still hostile to the US 60 years on. Cuba crisis was settled by the Soviet withdrawing their nuclear weapon, not by a US invasion. Apparently the Soviets cared more about having a stable relationship with the US than popping up Cuba.

>Which countries NATO invaded again?

-Bosnia and Herzegovina

-Kosovo

-Macedonia

-Afghanistan

They call it "peace mission" and "Security mission" , putin calls it "special operation"

>They are still hostile to the US 60 years on

Just the US still imposes sanctions toward Cuba, not the other way around, and btw Cuba never tried to invade the US...Bay of pigs? Guantanamo?

>the Soviet withdrawing their nuclear weapon

Would be nice if the US would do the same with the nuclear weapons in turkey no?

The double standards you have are fascinating.

Russia is not trying to annex (the whole of) Ukraine, at least that’s what they say. My understanding is that Russia wants a neutral buffer zone between themselves and NATO. This is basically Putin’s negotiation conditions. Putin isn’t even asking Ukraine to join CSTO, if I understand correctly.

They also said they won't be invading Ukraine... Days before they invaded it

>Putin isn’t even asking Ukraine to join CSTO

They should genuinely be thankful for that. Just like its predecessor Warsaw Pact, CSTO has exclusively invaded its own member countries. It's probably the worst organization you'd want to join

He said he wasn't going to invade. He said he'd respect Ukraine's borders in a 2014 signed agreement. He denies poisoning his opponents in London and Salisbury. Assume everything he says is gaslighting or some kind of deception. Words are just weapons for him.

>They did not threaten anybody

Try viewing things from another perspective for a moment. If there was an unfriendly alliance to the United States, and Mexico declared they wanted to join this alliance, and were being supplied military weapons and training by this alliance over the past few years... wouldn't you think the US would be somewhat alarmed or threatened? (Cuba missile crisis hello?) Furthermore, in such a situation, how likely would the US warn Mexico to not join this alliance, and/or threaten to invade if they didn't demiliterize? How likely would we invade if they refused? We did invade Iraq after all, over supposedly weapons of mass destruction - why not an unfriendly nation on our border that has been militarizing the past few years?

Now replace Ukraine with Mexico, and Russia with US, and that's basically the situation.

This happened in the run-up to World War I, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram Mexico then made it clear that they would not be joining an anti-U.S. alliance in the near term, and relations were kept quite cordial throughout. Your argument proves the exact opposite of what you're expecting it to.

Huh? How does that prove the exact opposite? Mexico said they won’t join anti-US alliance. Ukraine still wanted to join NATO right before the invasion.

There are many, many reasons why Ukraine would not have been able to join NATO in the foreseeable future, and this was very clear to all parties. Ironically, the Crimean situation is one which Russia has direct influence on. Ukraine's retaliatory moves on the status of the Russian language likely would've been naturally on the table in the context of joining either NATO or EU.

>Your argument proves the exact opposite of what you're expecting it to

Actually, you're proving my point. The Zimmermann Telegram publication caused outrage and was the main catalyst for why the U.S. entered into World War I. And difference here is that Mexico ultimately decided to not join this alliance (so we didn't invade Mexico), whereas Ukraine announced they'd like to join such an alliance.

> and was the main catalyst for why the U.S. entered into World War I.

No, the main catalyst was definitely Germany's submarine warfare against U.S. civilian ships. Prior to that, orientation in the U.S. was largely against the war despite the Zimmermann telegram.

Okay, maybe not the main reason, but it was still was a contributing reason. Anyhow, pointing this out, still doesn't invalidate my point.

Now as part of your analogy, imagine the United States is a brutal, repressive dictatorship and what it finds threatening is democracy. And Mexico is becoming more democratic....

So if my small country would be neighbor to US we would need to ask US permissions for stuff? If the answer is "sure, for X and Y US should approve because it is so big" then this means that US neighbors are not really independent but vassal countries? If yes, please have your preferred politician admit this.

I am from eastern Europe and I can tell you we did not want to enter in NATO because we love USA and agree with it 100% , we did it to get into this defensive alliance to protect ourselves from Russia. Nobody here wants to sacrifice their live to bring freedom or Western values to Russians, we want to be left alone and we want to be able to do aliances and partnerships without the big bully to veto it.

If you listen to all of Putin speeches and not some cherry picked parts, you will see he admitted he wants to restore the URSS , he started the war to bring back is "brothers" into URSS and this NATO stuff is upsetting him because if he waits until Ukraine or Moldove enters NATO he will not be able to make URSS great again.

Explanation != justification. And a partial explanation at best.

If the point of the alliance was to keep the US from invading alliance members, then I can see the US being unhappy, sure. What I can't see is the comparison to Cuba, where the issue was the presence of nuclear-capable missiles. That's... not defensive.

Russian cruise missile flying (slowly) over Ukraine: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/PORUIzOcVYE

> Not endorsing any side of the conflict

Well, when you put it that way, elevating the aggressors to an equivalent sympathetic status as the clear and undeniable victims, I am certain you've just inadvertently endorsed Putin. Congratulations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com